Thoughts by Sam Friedman

A Few of My Favorite Things

Movie: The Boys in the Band

Play and screenplay by Mart Crowley
Directed by William Friedkin
Starring: Kenneth Nelson, Peter White, Leonard Frey, Frederick Combs, Laurence Luckinbill, Keith Prentice, Robert La Tourneaux, and Reuben Greene.



Our Group recently viewed this movie again after many years of absence. It’s truly amazing how well this film holds up after all these years. Here’s my take on the film which is ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS . . .

The original play by Mart Crowley, came out in 1968, a year before Stonewall, and the movie came out in 1970, the year after that landmark which changed gay rights forever. While I never saw the original play, I’ve heard it said that the movie is extremely faithful to the original script. And most of the original actors in the play made the transition over to film. Sadly, many are dead now. However, Cliff Gorman, who plays the most screaming queen ever to inhabit a movie, is still alive and believe it or not, straight. His performance is a gem.

Criticisms abound for this movie, most of which deal with the fact that it perpetuates gay stereotypes. Well, it does and it doesn’t. If you’re honest with yourself, you will see a bit of stereotyping in just about anything. Sure, some of the characters are promiscuous, some are bitchy, some are closeted, etc., but who really wants to see a movie about well-adjusted people of any ilk, be they gay, straight, whatever. And most people are missing the point of Crowley’s work. He was trying to paint a wide swath of the many different types of gay men there are. This is something that no one else seems to have gotten right even after thirty years. So in a sense, the movie was not only ahead of its time in 1968, it’s still ahead of its time.

Had Crowley wanted to stereotype, he would have picked only Emory, the screaming queen, which was, and unfortunately still is, a large and accepted stereotype. Instead, Crowley gives us a wide range, saying, “Look, here are people from every walk of life: married, closeted, screaming, promiscuous, faithful, honest, nasty, and everything in between.” (my words, not his literally). Crowley then has them play off of each other with a brilliance that has yet to be matched, even today. Now we have “Will & Grace,” and we love them. And we’re happy that Will is portrayed as the grounded-in-reality, hard-working, straight-acting one. Great. But whom do we enjoy watching? Jack. And Karen. The two over the top characters who the sitcom isn’t supposed to really be about. It’s as if Fred and Ethel had usurped Ricky and Lucy.

My point is this: no one wants to read, see, or explore normality, whatever that really is. Crowley’s play is what it is supposed to be: a drama; and the essence of drama is conflict. Crowley not has the characters conflict with each other, but he has each of them endure their own inner turmoil, and has the guts to show it to us.

Kenneth Nelson, who plays Michael, the bitter, bitchy homosexual who is hosting the birthday party, is a mass of confusion. He’s southern, living in New York, obsessed with doing things “just so” yet a horrible host, jealous, loving, self-loathing, cynical, and even funny at times. And he’s just one character. His layers play off of the other characters, each of whom has their own cross to bear, so to speak.

Hank, played by Laurence Luckinbill, is the married man who has left his wife and two children for Larry. Hank can “pass” for straight and doesn’t feel the need to tell the entire world what his sexual preference is. He’s coupled with Larry, the promiscuous one, who wants a relationship but still wants to dabble on the side with anyone who comes along. Larry experiences guilt over this, yet can’t help himself or his sexual appetite. Hank basically wants a family, a home, stability, just with a man, not a woman. The complexity of this relationship alone is enough for a play. Now add the others and you’ve got a diso-ball-faceted group that brings up emotions too raw for most of us.

These are just some examples of the brilliance in Crowley’s characters. Seriously, this is probably one of the best plays written for the theater, not just a “gay” play. And while the play does date itself with music and styles of clothes, they aren’t that different—this could be the early sixties, the seventies, or even the eighties in some cities with the exception of the flare of a few of the pants and some hair styles. I can’t stress this enough: if you see one movie for its character development and relationship flaws, make it this one. And cut through the idea of negative gay stereotyping and see what Crowley is trying to say about the duality and complexity of human relationships—even more so with gay men.